OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

mm wrote:
OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

Maybe because they haven't spent a dollar in the last 20 years on oil leak
recovery texhnology.

On 7/16/2010 3:27 PM Bob F spake thus:

mm wrote:

OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

Maybe because they haven't spent a dollar in the last 20 years on oil leak
recovery texhnology.

And this maybe because they weren't required to by the
fox-guarding-the-henhouse regulatory agency in charge, the Minerals
Management Agency. (Such regulatory laxity having been most pronounced
in Bush-Cheney time, but seamlessly continued by Obama ...)


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:08:30 -0400, mm
wrote:

OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

That cap was just engineered.

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

Depth?

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

They had plans, but they included saving the Walrus.

There are oil wells from the 40's-50's in the Gulf... who checks them?

"mm" wrote in message
...
OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

This cap was made to order to fit the application

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

That's the trouble with this deep well. There has never been an event quite
like this one.


Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

The he first blow-out protector was tested and failed some of the tests.
They used it anyway. Probably a combination of greed and incompetence.

Stop reading the funnies and pay attention to the real (such as it is )
world.

"Joe Carthy" wrote in message
...
mm wrote in
:

OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?


BP was busy looking for more terrorists to help let out of jail.

Don't you know? BP is all into "green" technology.

http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?cat...tentId=7051376

Oil is just a sideline.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:32:51 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

the Minerals Management Agency.

What is the name for agency after the recent name change?

On 7/16/2010 6:45 PM Oren spake thus:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:32:51 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

the Minerals Management Agency.

What is the name for agency after the recent name change?

Looks like Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement (BOEMRE):

http://www.mms.gov


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"Charlie" wrote in message
...

"mm" wrote in message
...
OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

This cap was made to order to fit the application

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

That's the trouble with this deep well. There has never been an event
quite like this one.


Eh...more reason to prepare for catastrophes. If they can't do it safely
they shouldn't do it. And yes, there have been deep water oil blow outs
before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:26:44 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:08:30 -0400, mm
wrote:

OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

That cap was just engineered.

Nothing like waiting until the last minute.

What one BP guy said since I posted was that they had had the idea in
their head since the leak started, but afaict: didn't start building
it for what I guess was a month or more, or even two.

If they had thought about it and started building it last year, it
would have been done 3 months ago.

What do the other oil companies plan for such an event. Instead of
jut making them testify that BP shouldn't have drilled this well where
it was, did any in the congressional hearing ask about their own plans
in case of a leak?

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

Depth?

Did they test those in shallow water at least. The news never says.
The news "reporters" probably never ask them.

NASA still managed to test its space capsules before it launched them.

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

They had plans, but they included saving the Walrus.

At least that worked. No walruses were killed.

There are oil wells from the 40's-50's in the Gulf... who checks them?

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:14:34 -0400, "Charlie"
wrote:


"mm" wrote in message
.. .
OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

This cap was made to order to fit the application

It could have, should have, been made in advance.

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

That's the trouble with this deep well. There has never been an event quite
like this one.

That's no reason not to plan for it and create tools to deal with it
in advance.

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

The he first blow-out protector was tested and failed some of the tests.
They used it anyway.

Wow. I didn't know that.

Probably a combination of greed and incompetence.

Stop reading the funnies and pay attention to the real (such as it is )
world.

On Jul 17, 5:26*am, mm wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:14:34 -0400, "Charlie"
wrote:



"mm" wrote in message
.. .
OT *BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? * Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

This cap was made to order to fit the application

It could have, should have, been made in advance.



Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. * Why not?

That's the trouble with this deep well. There has never been an event quite
like this one.

That's no reason not to plan for it and create tools to deal with it
in advance.

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

The he first blow-out protector was tested and failed some of the tests.
They used it anyway.

Wow. * I didn't know that.



Probably a combination of greed and incompetence.

Stop reading the funnies and pay attention to the real (such as it is )
world.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That was an American company BTW.

Charlie wrote:
"mm" wrote in message
...
OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

This cap was made to order to fit the application

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

That's the trouble with this deep well. There has never been an event
quite like this one.


Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they
first started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

The he first blow-out protector was tested and failed some of the
tests. They used it anyway. Probably a combination of greed and
incompetence.

A rule from the book "Systemantics":

"A Fail-Safe system will always fail by failing to fail safe"

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:14:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Charlie wrote:
"mm" wrote in message
...
OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

This cap was made to order to fit the application

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

That's the trouble with this deep well. There has never been an event
quite like this one.


Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they
first started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

The he first blow-out protector was tested and failed some of the
tests. They used it anyway. Probably a combination of greed and
incompetence.

A rule from the book "Systemantics":

"A Fail-Safe system will always fail by failing to fail safe"

I've heard at least one person use fail-safe without even knowing what
it means, as if it were synonymous with fail.

Today I heard on the radio, no discussion of when the cap was first
conceived or how long it took to make, or why it wasn't conceived and
made long ago, but that it was used last because methods that couldn't
make things worse were used first.

A) Even if this is a good reaso;n, there still seems to have been too
much time in between. Even more delayed afaict was bp's efforts at
cleanup. It seems they didn't even contract for most of the skimmers
until weeks or a month had gone by. They were "on their way" 6 or 8
weeks in, and not ships that were newly built. No one has said they
were skimming other oil leaks elsewhere.

In addition was one days' report, a long interview, 5 or 8 minutes,
with two people who were there but not allowed to enter, by Mother
Jones reporters that they weren't allowed on some beaches either by BP
guards or by local police, working afaict at the behest of BP. The
normal situation is that "for the public safety" the public is not
allowed where someone decides its dangerous but reporters are allowed
everywhere. At the most, they have to sign a release, releasing as
many as anyone and everyone from repsonibiity for harm that comes to
them. It's not like Godzilla was waiting down the beach to eat them.
It was tarballs and oily water. Too hot to use my web browser so I
can't look at the mother jones site for updated info, if any.

In article ,
mm wrote:

P
guards or by local police, working afaict at the behest of BP. The
normal situation is that "for the public safety" the public is not
allowed where someone decides its dangerous but reporters are allowed
everywhere.

Not hardly. When I was working as a reporter, there were plenty of
police and fire lines I could not cross. If I went on private property
I was subject to arrest for tresspass, etc. etc.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:02:48 -0400, mm
wrote:


Today I heard on the radio, no discussion of when the cap was first
conceived or how long it took to make, or why it wasn't conceived and
made long ago, but that it was used last because methods that couldn't
make things worse were used first.

Conceived at or before the other top kills failed. It took weeks to
design and build -- from my observation and reading.

A) Even if this is a good reaso;n, there still seems to have been too
much time in between. Even more delayed afaict was bp's efforts at
cleanup. It seems they didn't even contract for most of the skimmers
until weeks or a month had gone by. They were "on their way" 6 or 8
weeks in, and not ships that were newly built. No one has said they
were skimming other oil leaks elsewhere.

Many boats, locally, were modified to work as skimmers. Even that
takes a little time. I see what looks like a shrimp boat doing double
duty as a skimmer. Not what they were built for.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:28:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

P
guards or by local police, working afaict at the behest of BP. The
normal situation is that "for the public safety" the public is not
allowed where someone decides its dangerous but reporters are allowed
everywhere.

Not hardly. When I was working as a reporter, there were plenty of
police and fire lines I could not cross. If I went on private property
I was subject to arrest for tresspass, etc. etc.

Okay, I overstated it, but what do you think about not letting
reporters on a public beach because of tarballs and oily water? What
other excuse might they have had which would have been better?

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:47:40 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:02:48 -0400, mm
wrote:


Today I heard on the radio, no discussion of when the cap was first
conceived or how long it took to make, or why it wasn't conceived and
made long ago, but that it was used last because methods that couldn't
make things worse were used first.

Conceived at or before the other top kills failed. It took weeks to

Right. What I'm saying is it should have been conceived, designed,
and built years ago.

design and build -- from my observation and reading.

A) Even if this is a good reaso;n, there still seems to have been too
much time in between. Even more delayed afaict was bp's efforts at
cleanup. It seems they didn't even contract for most of the skimmers
until weeks or a month had gone by. They were "on their way" 6 or 8
weeks in, and not ships that were newly built. No one has said they
were skimming other oil leaks elsewhere.

Many boats, locally, were modified to work as skimmers. Even that
takes a little time. I see what looks like a shrimp boat doing double
duty as a skimmer. Not what they were built for.

I agree it takes some time, but I've heard no one say they were
contracted for less than a month after the leak started. Plus there
are skiimmers already built for that purpose. If they ordered some
immediately, I would think they would be talking about that. Because
they have commercials which give plenty of opportunity to say what
they are doing, but they don't say anything specific.

They had one commercial, with a black guy from the area, which said,
"We won't always do things perfectlly...." I saw that twice, but I
think they got ridiculed, because afaik they haven't done anything
perfectly. So they rewrote his script more artfully.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:27:11 -0400, mm
wrote:

They had one commercial, with a black guy from the area, which said,
"We won't always do things perfectlly...." I saw that twice, but I
think they got ridiculed, because afaik they haven't done anything
perfectly. So they rewrote his script more artfully.

Never let the fact interfere with the writing of a good report:

* Those are self-inflicted injuries
* He fell up the stairs.
* It wasn't brutality, just a justified whipping
* He dialed the wrong number

mm wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:28:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

P
guards or by local police, working afaict at the behest of BP. The
normal situation is that "for the public safety" the public is not
allowed where someone decides its dangerous but reporters are allowed
everywhere.
Not hardly. When I was working as a reporter, there were plenty of
police and fire lines I could not cross. If I went on private property
I was subject to arrest for tresspass, etc. etc.

Okay, I overstated it, but what do you think about not letting
reporters on a public beach because of tarballs and oily water? What
other excuse might they have had which would have been better?

I suspect there was some legal angle that the beach being a work site,
then BP had the right to keep people out (like a construction site).
They certainly had the right to prohibit people they hired from talking
to the press during work hours. I'm sure not on BP's side, nor do I
approve of their conduct of passing along information...just sayin'.

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:28:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



Okay, I overstated it, but what do you think about not letting
reporters on a public beach because of tarballs and oily water? What
other excuse might they have had which would have been better?

I think if the beach was closed to all by the local authorities then
I think it was the right thing to not let reporters on the beach. If BP
was not letting anyone on public beaches on its own "authority" then I
think regular citizens should have told them to kiss my aura, dora. The
press should have followed suit.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
mm wrote:


Right. What I'm saying is it should have been conceived, designed,
and built years ago.

Then why didn't you? If it was so obvious, except of course in
20/20 hidnsight.


I agree it takes some time, but I've heard no one say they were
contracted for less than a month after the leak started. Plus there
are skiimmers already built for that purpose. If they ordered some
immediately, I would think they would be talking about that. Because
they have commercials which give plenty of opportunity to say what
they are doing, but they don't say anything specific.
People were doing stuff within the first couple of days at the
site and starting to set up at the beaches, etc., soon thereafter.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:41:11 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

People were doing stuff within the first couple of days at the
site and starting to set up at the beaches, etc., soon thereafter.

Correct. Helicopter pilots, boat captains still had a job in the early
moments of this event. That is how staff transport to the rig.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:41:11 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:


Right. What I'm saying is it should have been conceived, designed,
and built years ago.

Then why didn't you?

I don't work for the oil company. If I did I would have taken my
responsibility seriously, although they might have prevented me from
doing what was needed.

If it was so obvious, except of course in
20/20 hidnsight.

Do you think it takes 20/20 foresight to make provisions for leaks?

I agree it takes some time, but I've heard no one say they were
contracted for less than a month after the leak started. Plus there
are skiimmers already built for that purpose. If they ordered some
immediately, I would think they would be talking about that. Because
they have commercials which give plenty of opportunity to say what
they are doing, but they don't say anything specific.
People were doing stuff within the first couple of days at the
site and starting to set up at the beaches, etc., soon thereafter.

There's stuff, and then there's more the stuff they could have done.

BTW, even if you guys doon't agree with me, you're better than any
public affairs group I've found, which are all infested with political
and other spammers.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:41:11 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:


Right. What I'm saying is it should have been conceived, designed,
and built years ago.

Then why didn't you? If it was so obvious, except of course in
20/20 hidnsight.


I agree it takes some time, but I've heard no one say they were
contracted for less than a month after the leak started. Plus there
are skiimmers already built for that purpose. If they ordered some
immediately, I would think they would be talking about that. Because
they have commercials which give plenty of opportunity to say what
they are doing, but they don't say anything specific.
People were doing stuff within the first couple of days at the
site and starting to set up at the beaches, etc., soon thereafter.

mm wrote:

Today I heard on the radio, no discussion of when the cap was first
conceived or how long it took to make, or why it wasn't conceived and
made long ago, but that it was used last because methods that couldn't
make things worse were used first.


From the Christian Science Monitor (17 July 2010)

"[ATLANTA] The identity of the "mystery plumber" whose homemade design for a
new containment cap may have helped to finally stanch the Gulf oil spill
geyser emerged Saturday.

"His name is Joe Caldart, a married, 40-something blue-collar guy with five
kids and three hound dogs living in St. Francis, Kan. Mr. Caldart has 907
Facebook friends. He likes the band Rednecks & Red Dirt, watches "Family
Guy," and cites the 1978 Burt Reynolds flick "Hooper" as one of his
favorites."

Money quote:
"The idea was using the top flange on the blowout preventer as an attachment
point and then employing an internal seal against that flange surface," says
Dr. Bea. "You can kind of see how a plumber thinks this way. That's how they
have to plumb homes for sewage."

Full story
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...oil-spill-leak

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:41:11 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:


Right. What I'm saying is it should have been conceived, designed,
and built years ago.

Then why didn't you?

I don't work for the oil company. If I did I would have taken my
responsibility seriously, although they might have prevented me from
doing what was needed.
Of course you would have.


If it was so obvious, except of course in
20/20 hidnsight.

Do you think it takes 20/20 foresight to make provisions for leaks?

Nope. But they did make a bunch of provisions for leaks, just none of
them worked. The foresight I am questioning is knowing ahead of time
that this particular one would have to be invented for this particular
situation.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

mm wrote:
OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

I suppose many of the same types of questions are asked after any
disaster. Airplane crashes come to mind. Seat belts for autos.
Electrical grounding procedures. How about something home related like
a sink trap? I wonder how long that took before someone figured out
those are a good thing.
The Jones Act was blamed for some of the response tardiness. It
has something to do with letting foreign crews in U.S. coastal waters.
I think the Administration was too slow to waive the law if it ever did.
One article said there are something like 6 purpose built vessels for
oil cleanup. All foreign owned, I think. There were a lot of offers to
help but few accepted from what I've gathered.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:48:30 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

mm wrote:
OT BP again

So they capped the pipe.

Where was this cap for the last 89 days? Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. Why not?

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

I suppose many of the same types of questions are asked after any
disaster. Airplane crashes come to mind. Seat belts for autos.
Electrical grounding procedures. How about something home related like
a sink trap? I wonder how long that took before someone figured out
those are a good thing.
The Jones Act was blamed for some of the response tardiness. It
has something to do with letting foreign crews in U.S. coastal waters.
I think the Administration was too slow to waive the law if it ever did.

Yes, it took Bush two days to waive the Jones Act after Katrina. He didn't
owe his Presidency to the Union thugs though.

Let's not forget the incident with the life preservers and the one barring the
Lousiana sand berms. Oh, how about them not allowing the discharge of the
"polluted" water from the skimmers.

One article said there are something like 6 purpose built vessels for
oil cleanup. All foreign owned, I think. There were a lot of offers to
help but few accepted from what I've gathered.

Certainly none were accepted expeditiously.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:05:20 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

You're not running for office in Howard County are you. Now that I'm
home, I'm not sure what the name on the sign was, but it was close.

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:05:20 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

You're not running for office in Howard County are you. Now that I'm
home, I'm not sure what the name on the sign was, but it was close.
Nope. I know of only one other Kurt Ullman in the US, and he is
out West somewhere.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Jul 16, 6:08*pm, mm wrote:
Where was this cap for the last 89 days? * Why don't they have three
of them or more, at least one on each continent where they have
off-shore wells?

Why? Because it's the first of its kind, ever. Took 88 days to design
and build.

Why was every procedured they did reported with the caveat, This has
never been done before. * Why not? *

There's a first time for everything.

Why haden't they tested all the procedures and devices when they first
started underwater drilling, again when ty started deep water
drilling, and again every time a new procedure or device was
developed?

How would you propose they test it under realistic conditions? Hmm,
let's drill an oil well and let it blow out, then see if we can plug
it? Seems like they're doing a bang-up job of testing it right now.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:28:31 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:05:20 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

You're not running for office in Howard County are you. Now that I'm
home, I'm not sure what the name on the sign was, but it was close.
Nope. I know of only one other Kurt Ullman in the US, and he is
out West somewhere.

Okay. I googled and it's Ken Ulman, the Howard County Executive,
already elected and running for re-election.

In article ,
mm wrote:



Okay. I googled and it's Ken Ulman, the Howard County Executive,
already elected and running for re-election.

And he is in Maryland, where as I am in Indiana. MY Howard County
includes Kokomo, I hope his doesn't (grin).

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist